Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
